Featured Progressive Dispensationalism

Exactly! This is in part, based on biblical theology, I moved to Amill. An extra 1,000 year reign is needless and arbitrary when all the promises find their "yes" in Jesus.

 

I see that. That's why I feel myself slowly sliding toward the amill side of the fence. If it weren't for Revelation I would certainly be amill.

 

???? What's in Rev to hinder you from adding Idealism into your interpretive approach? I'm like others, I see merit in all four views with the book; Preterist, Historicist, Idealist, Futurist.

Historicist view has affected me more than any though.

 

I think we talked about this before. The text talks about 1,000 years and repeatedly mentions it. The layout makes it appear as if it is a period of time between the Second Coming and the New Heavens and Earth. Is it certain? No, but it makes the most sense to me.

I agree with you, i see merit in all 4 as well. I would describe myself primarily as a Historicist, leaning partial-preterist. Idealism, while bringing up some good points, is too often too much of a stretch on the text IMO.

 

If Jesus is reigning now on David's throne, then why have an additional 1000 year reign on Earth? But if Jesus is not reigning now on David's throne, then the 1000 year reign on earth is necessary to fulfill prophecy.

Why not address the reasons why you think "His Father's thone" is His throne. And why not think of Jesus as waiting until His enemies are made a footstool, rather than reigning?